Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC,
which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time.


I tried to track this down (with little actual success) and the few 
vague assertions I could find made it seem like combustion actually 
takes a lot longer than that.  Sites I found made it appear that it 
completes at least 10 degrees after TDC, which means it's taking more 
like 20 degrees than 10.


OTOH that's in the ideal case, and if the chamber has hotspots or it's 
running on gas that's too low test or any of a number of other things, 
combustion may run rather faster.  And the original assertion, IIRC, had 
to do with the /peak/ combustion rate in the engine (as an example of 
chemical energy production rates), so if it hits your numbers only when 
overheating while accelerating up a mountain pulling a trailer with a 
tank full of Gulftane, that's good enough.  :-)



On 06/17/2016 07:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:00:10 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

 wrote:

Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results

in a
power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of
milliseconds,
and that's just chemical energy (with maybe few hydrinos thrown in ;).


Really? Hmmm . . . How do you figure that?


At 60 mph a typical old car consumes ~20 mpg. 1 gallon is 3.8 L, so that's
0.19 L per mile (or per minute). 1 L of gasoline produces 34.2 MJ. Divide
by 20 to get 1.71 MJ per minute.

Using your figures of 34.2 MJ/L and 0.19 L/minute I get 6.5 MJ/min, however
that's for 6 cylinders, so for 1 cylinder that would be about
1 MJ/min = 18 kJ/sec.



A single piston stroke produces only a
small fraction of that. I don't know how long it takes the gasoline to
burn, but I doubt such a small amount would reach the half-megawatt level.

Here is a paper on the burn rate of gasoline, which you have to pay for:

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-0469/

At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston stroke
with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . . ummm . .
.1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 0.0002 s to burn?

- Jed

A 4 stroke engine has one power stroke/cylinder every 2 cycles, so at 2500 rpm,
that's 1250 power strokes/cylinder/min = 21 power strokes/cylinder/sec. So each
power stroke/cylinder produces 18 kJ/21 or about 860 J.

At 2500 rpm, there is a revolution (360 deg) every 24 ms.
If combustion happens within 10 deg. of TDC, then combustion time is
24 ms*(10/360) = 0.67 of a ms.

860 J / 0.67 ms is about 1.3 MW.

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC,
which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time.

The figures I used initially were a little different to yours, hence my original
calculation was also somewhat different.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:00:10 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
> wrote:
>
>Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results
>> in a
>> power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of
>> milliseconds,
>> and that's just chemical energy (with maybe few hydrinos thrown in ;).
>>
>
>Really? Hmmm . . . How do you figure that?
>
>
>At 60 mph a typical old car consumes ~20 mpg. 1 gallon is 3.8 L, so that's
>0.19 L per mile (or per minute). 1 L of gasoline produces 34.2 MJ. Divide
>by 20 to get 1.71 MJ per minute. 

Using your figures of 34.2 MJ/L and 0.19 L/minute I get 6.5 MJ/min, however
that's for 6 cylinders, so for 1 cylinder that would be about 
1 MJ/min = 18 kJ/sec.


>A single piston stroke produces only a
>small fraction of that. I don't know how long it takes the gasoline to
>burn, but I doubt such a small amount would reach the half-megawatt level.
>
>Here is a paper on the burn rate of gasoline, which you have to pay for:
>
>http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-0469/
>
>At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston stroke
>with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . . ummm . .
>.1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 0.0002 s to burn?
>
>- Jed

A 4 stroke engine has one power stroke/cylinder every 2 cycles, so at 2500 rpm,
that's 1250 power strokes/cylinder/min = 21 power strokes/cylinder/sec. So each
power stroke/cylinder produces 18 kJ/21 or about 860 J.

At 2500 rpm, there is a revolution (360 deg) every 24 ms.
If combustion happens within 10 deg. of TDC, then combustion time is
24 ms*(10/360) = 0.67 of a ms.

860 J / 0.67 ms is about 1.3 MW.

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC,
which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time.

The figures I used initially were a little different to yours, hence my original
calculation was also somewhat different.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/17/2016 06:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston 
stroke with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . 
. ummm . . .1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 
0.0002 s to burn?


For sure -- at least, in some cars.

Had an old Chevy Impala, many years ago, that didn't have any truck with 
this "fast burn" business -- it was "detonation or nothing!" It sounded 
like somebody was frying marbles in it if you hit the gas while it was 
going uphill.


:-)

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:

Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results
> in a
> power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of
> milliseconds,
> and that's just chemical energy (with maybe few hydrinos thrown in ;).
>

Really? Hmmm . . . How do you figure that?


At 60 mph a typical old car consumes ~20 mpg. 1 gallon is 3.8 L, so that's
0.19 L per mile (or per minute). 1 L of gasoline produces 34.2 MJ. Divide
by 20 to get 1.71 MJ per minute. A single piston stroke produces only a
small fraction of that. I don't know how long it takes the gasoline to
burn, but I doubt such a small amount would reach the half-megawatt level.

Here is a paper on the burn rate of gasoline, which you have to pay for:

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-0469/

At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston stroke
with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . . ummm . .
.1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 0.0002 s to burn?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

Mills SunCell is now vaporizing the tungsten electrodes. Mills now produces
> megawatts of power in the volume of a coffee cup . . .
>

Not for long. The coffee cup would explode or vaporize.

Do you mean megajoules, perhaps?

Some chemical systems can produce very high power density for brief
periods. I don't know about megawatts in a coffee cup.

(Chemical explosives produce a lot of power, but not as much as things like
rocket fuel, even over a brief duration.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Axil Axil]

Mills SunCell is now vaporizing the tungsten electrodes. Mills now produces
megawatts of power in the volume of a coffee cup, Can energy release from
chemistry explain this high power density? Can chemistry explain life after
death of 10 times the input energy duration explainable using chemistry?
Can the production of X-rays be produced using an input voltage level of a
few volts?

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:05 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:49:55 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The situation is simple. Mills has been producing low levels of energy
> and claind it was produced by chemical means. LENR also produced low levels
> of energy and said it came from nuclear processes. In this situation, a way
> to tell what method was correct is not possible.
>
> Indeed, and in fact it may well be a combination of both.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:49:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The situation is simple. Mills has been producing low levels of energy and 
>claind it was produced by chemical means. LENR also produced low levels of 
>energy and said it came from nuclear processes. In this situation, a way to 
>tell what method was correct is not possible.

Indeed, and in fact it may well be a combination of both.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[mixent]

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:58:09 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>This doesn't make sense because Mills has a theory which explains 
>precisely how much energy and power he expects to generate in each 
>experiment. He couldn't have made a mistake like this. Surely he has 
>compared his experimental results with his theoretical results.
>
>Craig

Mills can't calculate how many atoms actually react each time.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/17/2016 04:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it 
couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, 
Mills has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of 
his funding. These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded 
for nothing. They expect him to deliver something tangible at some 
point, and that point was fast approaching, since there was nothing 
left for him to do with the SunCell. However, now if he's discovered 
an even GREATER source of energy, by orders of magnitude, then he can 
lobby for funding for another 20 years.


To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to 
push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as 
possible to maintain any kind of credibility.



And if he's not legit, then he really, really needed some new song to 
sing to the "investors" who give him money.   And, as you say, it sounds 
like he found one.


Mills has exhibited a positively transmortal ability to get people to 
invest in something seemingly implausible with only the thinnest shreds 
of evidence to back it up, and to keep on investing for decades despite 
the complete lack of anything resembling a product.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:38:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his experiments
>were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the particular
>characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has been a
>correspondence between the small amount of energy produced by LENR
>experiments and the small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.
>
>In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge quantities of
>excess power produced in these reactor meltdowns, in the megawatt range.
>There is no way that such huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical
>means. 

Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results in a
power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of milliseconds,
and that's just chemical energy (with maybe few hydrinos thrown in ;).

I suspect that if you look into brisant explosives you will get even more.

Because Hydrino reactions produce 100-1000 times more energy than a normal
chemical reaction, megawatt powers are to me expected.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

>>> Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are 
beyond chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have 
been doing LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge 
increase in SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening 
inside the SunCell.


This doesn't make sense because Mills has a theory which explains 
precisely how much energy and power he expects to generate in each 
experiment. He couldn't have made a mistake like this. Surely he has 
compared his experimental results with his theoretical results.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Axil Axil]

The situation is simple. Mills has been producing low levels of energy and
claind it was produced by chemical means. LENR also produced low levels of
energy and said it came from nuclear processes. In this situation, a way to
tell what method was correct is not possible.

Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are beyond
chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have been doing
LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge increase in
SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening inside the
SunCell.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it
> couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills has
> been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his funding.
> These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded for nothing. They
> expect him to deliver something tangible at some point, and that point was
> fast approaching, since there was nothing left for him to do with the
> SunCell. However, now if he's discovered an even GREATER source of energy,
> by orders of magnitude, then he can lobby for funding for another 20 years.
>
> To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to
> push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as possible to
> maintain any kind of credibility.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 06/17/2016 04:06 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
>
> This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he:
>
> 1) Discovered something unusual.
>
> 2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon.
>
> 3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding of
> this phenomenon.
>
> It's because he was working from theory which made his progress credible.
> He either really had discovered something, and was able to exploit it, or
> he was a complete fraud, since if his theory is worthless, then he could
> never have developed all of his work.
>
> Now, if his theory can no longer explain the phenomenon, then this means
> that he has either a) discovered ANOTHER amazing phenomenon, or b) has a
> discredited theory which seriously makes me question anything he's done.
>
> His theory has always had problems, and always had a lot of criticism. I
> don't doubt there may be holes in it which need to be filled -- perhaps a
> lot of holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have discovered
> another amazing energy source without using theory.
>
> Craig
>
> On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop
>> this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>> R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his
>>> experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the
>>> particular characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has been a
>>> correspondence between the small amount of energy produced by LENR
>>> experiments and the small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.
>>>
>>> In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge quantities of
>>> excess power produced in these reactor meltdowns, in the megawatt range.
>>> There is no way that such huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical
>>> means. This implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess
>>> energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on. Mills must now
>>> explain where all this energy is coming from if it cannot be produced by
>>> chemical reactions. X-rays are being generated with energies far in excess
>>> of any electrical input voltages. What produces these X-rays?
>>>
>>> BLP states:
>>>
>>> Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable
>>> observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in the
>>> absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any energy
>>> releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further impossibility of known
>>> chemistry of this high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at
>>> a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and the inability
>>> of any known chemistry to release such high energy.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it 
couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills 
has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his 
funding. These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded for 
nothing. They expect him to deliver something tangible at some point, 
and that point was fast approaching, since there was nothing left for 
him to do with the SunCell. However, now if he's discovered an even 
GREATER source of energy, by orders of magnitude, then he can lobby for 
funding for another 20 years.


To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to 
push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as possible 
to maintain any kind of credibility.


Craig

On 06/17/2016 04:06 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:

This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he:

1) Discovered something unusual.

2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon.

3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding 
of this phenomenon.


It's because he was working from theory which made his progress 
credible. He either really had discovered something, and was able to 
exploit it, or he was a complete fraud, since if his theory is 
worthless, then he could never have developed all of his work.


Now, if his theory can no longer explain the phenomenon, then this 
means that he has either a) discovered ANOTHER amazing phenomenon, or 
b) has a discredited theory which seriously makes me question anything 
he's done.


His theory has always had problems, and always had a lot of criticism. 
I don't doubt there may be holes in it which need to be filled -- 
perhaps a lot of holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have 
discovered another amazing energy source without using theory.


Craig

On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:


Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to
develop this process, has now failed him and can no longer
explain it?

Craig


On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in
his experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are
driven by the particular characteristics of the hydrino
theory. There always has been a correspondence between the
small amount of energy produced by LENR experiments and the
small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.

In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge
quantities of excess power produced in these reactor
meltdowns, in the megawatt range. There is no way that such
huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical means. This
implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess
energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on.
Mills must now explain where all this energy is coming from
if it cannot be produced by chemical reactions. X-rays are
being generated with energies far in excess of any electrical
input voltages. What produces these X-rays?

BLP states:

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise
inexplicable observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy
hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power,
the nonexistence of any energy releasing chemistry with this
fuel, and the further impossibility of known chemistry of
this high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation
at a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced
and the inability of any known chemistry to release such high
energy.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he:

1) Discovered something unusual.

2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon.

3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding 
of this phenomenon.


It's because he was working from theory which made his progress 
credible. He either really had discovered something, and was able to 
exploit it, or he was a complete fraud, since if his theory is 
worthless, then he could never have developed all of his work.


Now, if his theory can no longer explain the phenomenon, then this means 
that he has either a) discovered ANOTHER amazing phenomenon, or b) has a 
discredited theory which seriously makes me question anything he's done.


His theory has always had problems, and always had a lot of criticism. I 
don't doubt there may be holes in it which need to be filled -- perhaps 
a lot of holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have discovered 
another amazing energy source without using theory.


Craig

On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:


Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to
develop this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?

Craig


On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in
his experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are
driven by the particular characteristics of the hydrino
theory. There always has been a correspondence between the
small amount of energy produced by LENR experiments and the
small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.

In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge
quantities of excess power produced in these reactor
meltdowns, in the megawatt range. There is no way that such
huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical means. This
implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess
energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on.
Mills must now explain where all this energy is coming from if
it cannot be produced by chemical reactions. X-rays are being
generated with energies far in excess of any electrical input
voltages. What produces these X-rays?

BLP states:

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise
inexplicable observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy
hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power,
the nonexistence of any energy releasing chemistry with this
fuel, and the further impossibility of known chemistry of this
high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at a
voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and
the inability of any known chemistry to release such high energy.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Axil Axil]

>From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop this
> process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his
>> experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the
>> particular characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has been a
>> correspondence between the small amount of energy produced by LENR
>> experiments and the small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.
>>
>> In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge quantities of
>> excess power produced in these reactor meltdowns, in the megawatt range.
>> There is no way that such huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical
>> means. This implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess
>> energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on. Mills must now
>> explain where all this energy is coming from if it cannot be produced by
>> chemical reactions. X-rays are being generated with energies far in excess
>> of any electrical input voltages. What produces these X-rays?
>>
>> BLP states:
>>
>> Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable
>> observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in the
>> absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any energy
>> releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further impossibility of known
>> chemistry of this high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at
>> a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and the inability
>> of any known chemistry to release such high energy.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop 
this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?


Craig

On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his 
experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the 
particular characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has 
been a correspondence between the small amount of energy produced by 
LENR experiments and the small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.


In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge quantities 
of excess power produced in these reactor meltdowns, in the megawatt 
range. There is no way that such huge amounts of power can be produced 
by chemical means. This implies that the hydrino is no longer the 
cause of the excess energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is 
going on. Mills must now explain where all this energy is coming from 
if it cannot be produced by chemical reactions. X-rays are being 
generated with energies far in excess of any electrical input 
voltages. What produces these X-rays?


BLP states:

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable 
observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in 
the absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any 
energy releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further 
impossibility of known chemistry of this high energy. (ii) The 
emission of soft X-ray radiation at a voltage far less than that of 
the light energy produced and the inability of any known chemistry to 
release such high energy.